An explainer traces how Indian courts have handled claims by daily-wage, contract and ad hoc government workers seeking "regularisation" into permanent posts, contrasting the position before and after the Supreme Court's landmark Umadevi ruling, which curbed courts from ordering regularisation routinely and confined it to a one-time, rule-based government exercise for "irregularly" (not "illegally") appointed employees on sanctioned posts.
The doctrine balances Articles 14 and 16 (equality and equal opportunity in public employment) against Articles 309–311 and 320, which root recruitment in statutory/constitutional rules, presidential-pleasure tenure, and Public Service Commission vetting. Pre-Umadevi, "equal pay for equal work" reasoning favoured regularisation; post-Umadevi, courts stress that informal backdoor entry itself violates Article 16 by disadvantaging open, merit-based aspirants.
Key takeaway: remember the irregular-versus-illegal appointment distinction, the constitutional anchors (Arts 14, 16, 309, 310, 311, 320), and that Umadevi remains the governing precedent cited in current service-law litigation.